Hallidat v. R.I. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 5241.,5241. |
| Citation | 107 A. 86 |
| Parties | HALLIDAT v. RHODE ISLAND CO. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; John Doran, Judge.
Trespass on the case by Fred B. Halliday against the Rhode Island Company. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and, its motion for new trial having been denied, defendant excepted. Exceptions sustained, and case remitted for new trial.
Waterman & Greenlaw and Charles E. Tilley, all of Providence, for plaintiff.
Clifford Whipple and Alonzo R. Williams, both of Providence, for defendant.
This is an action of trespass on the case for negligence to recover for personal injuries and damage to an automobile. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $490. The defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court, and the case is before us on defendant's exception to the ruling of the trial court refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant; also on exception to the decision of said court denying defendant's motion for a new trial made on the grounds that the verdict is against the law and the evidence and the weight thereof.
The defendant's street car collided with plaintiff's automobile, east of Traverse street on Tockwotton street, in the city of Providence. The car track is located in the middle of Tockwotton street, which runs approximately east and west. The plaintiff turned his automobile from Benefit street into Tockwotton street and drove toward the east, with the wheels of his automobile running in the car track. He proceeded driving in the car track about half a block, when he saw the street car about a block and a half away, coming toward him "at a pretty good rate of speed." The car track was wet with water and slush. According to the testimony of the plaintiff, he immediately turned the front wheels of his automobile to the right at an angle of 22,1/2° and endeavored to drive out of the car track; but, although he had chains on the rear wheels and held the front wheels at an angle of 22,1/2° with the car rail, the automobile, proceeding about 10 miles an hour, went about 100 feet, passing over two switches in the track, before the plaintiff succeeded in driving the front wheels of his automobile out of the car track. When the automobile was partially off the track, the electric car collided with the left-hand side of the automobile.
Henry J. Lattimer, the motorman in charge of the electric car, testified that he made a stop at Brook street, which is about 300 feet from Traverse street, and when he first saw the automobile it was coming toward the car and running on the south side of Tockwotton street, so near the track that there was not room for the electric car to pass, although no part of the automobile was on the track, and that the car and automobile were about 200 feet apart. According to the testimony of the motorman, he immediately shut off the power when he first saw the automobile, but did nothing more to stop the car. After the ear had coasted about 50 feet, and was about 100 feet from the automobile, he put on his brakes, because he saw that the automobile was proceeding in the same close proximity to the car track. The application of the brakes causing the car to slide, he let off the brakes to release the wheels, put the brakes on again, rang the bell, and put on the reverse. The car slid a short distance with the power reversed. He testified that, when he saw an accident was imminent, he did all he could do to avoid the collision.
The plaintiff argues that, inasmuch as the trial court denied the defendant's motion for a new trial, the rule laid down by this court in the case of Wilcox v. Rhode Island Co., 29 R. I. 292, 70 Atl. 913, should be applied to this case and a new trial refused. The rule referred to is concisely stated in the syllabus of said case as follows:
"Where the evidence is conflicting and the nisi prius court has overruled a motion for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Diamond Cattle Co. v. Clark, 1994
- State v. Doyon, 78-385-C
-
E. S. Co., Inc. v. Rocheleau, 7143.
...to negotiate them. Upon the question of fraud, the defendant established a prima facie case. As this court said in Halliday v. R. I. Co., 42 R. I. at 353, 107 A. 86, 87: "His testimony is consistent and reasonable. It is the only evidence bearing on this question. This testimony is not impe......
- State v. Edwards, 2001-389-C.A.